You buy a few thousand acres of land and build a few thousand houses, condos, and apartments. While you’re at it you connect all units together with super high bandwidth fiber-optic lines. And, then you offer an incentive to all web developers, software engineers, educational content authors, scientists, and a boat load of media consumers to move into your high-tech neighborhood and develop software, services, and content to deliver and interact with over your network.

Sweet! You’re network and services exceed EVERYTHING outside of that network, bandwidth and content alike. Now, you decide to start selling that content to people outside of your development. The only way to do this is to tie into someone else’s network… oooo, say AT&T. They’ve got their own little neighborhood, and well, it is kinda sucking compared to yours, but o well, they’ve got millions of suckers paying out the wazoo for inferior service… sorry I digress…

so AT&T and you come to an agreement, if YOU pay AT&T your people can deliver data over their lines… at the same time AT&T’s people are already paying THEM for those very same lines. hmmmm… and YOU are depending on AT&T to upgrade their lines to make it so their customers can become your customers to.

Except, AT&T looks at how much money you are making with your excellent services and say… hey, we can NEVER make that with JUST an infrastructure… you need to pay us a percentage based on types of data. Sounds like a great deal right. No… not really. So, why not just tell AT&T to go >>>> themselves and run a line, or wireless connection straight to your new customers.

Most of you probably have read by now (its already 2 days old) the wsj article about Google not playing fair on the Net Neutrality front... The article was quickly put to shame by many respectable sources...

You know that this blog usually comments on certain people's attitude towards Google. One of them, a sworn Google-hater, is Henry Blodget who of course was the first to rush-in and launch an all-out attack on Google based on the wsj rantings...

The story usually goes like this: Henry writes a "Google-is-the-devil" post, and then I trash him... But sometimes, his own readers do my part of the story... just like today:

Jeff P said:

Henry, You obviously don't know the first thing about routers or routing protocols. Using your "definition" a company that purchases more bandwidth would not be adhering to net neutrality. Which is bunk.Without a hint of irony you call other people's ideas kneejerk when that is precisely what your entire article is. Please just admit it and don't post silly updates trying to defend your position as a matter of definitions. -Jeff slobeck said:

This article isn't journalism. At best it's misinformed. But I suspect that this article and others like it are the result of carefully orchestrated leaks by the large ISP's designed to sway public opinion against net neutrality for the coming fight...

...The good news here is that Henry Blodget is getting PWNED on the Huffington Post. I'd do a little research on the reality of net neutrality before going off half cocked with an ignorant rant on neutrality. I'd be somewhat embarrassed if I were him.

14 Dec 2008

3 Dec 2008

Just as another day rolled by and no significant piece of anti-google-baloney was caught on my radars, Owen Thomas managed to outperform himself in writing garbage about Google, again...

Thomas wrote a post titled "Google's austerity campaign" (and I'm certainly NOT linking...) trying desperately to convince his readers that Google prety much sucks as an employer... All this started when The Wall Street Journal took a look at Google's attempt for cost cuts.

Its a long, boring post and some of his main points seem to be:

...Google is curtailing service at its cafeterias, reducing hours and restricting guests..

Wow! So, during the worst financial crisis of the past 80 years, "curtailing service at cafeterias" is... an employee's nightmare... RIGHT... and I thought MY working conditions were hellish...

Google's employees no longer have free rein to pursue their own ideas. Google's engineers can spend 20 percent of time on side projects. That freedom remains, in theory, but the progress a lone engineer can make on a new website without hardware and additional personnel is limited...

So, your usual everyday-type-of-phd-engineer will NOT be content (again, during the shit the world is currently into...) with working on one of the planet's most technologically advanced company. This "lone" engineer (...) will experience hell-on-earth, because of "limited additional personnel"...

Why should Google's founders care, really? They seem increasingly detached from Google's core business, preferring to spend time on rockets and electric sports cars rather than optimizing AdWords...

Spot-on on this one Owen... Its EXACTLY their CONTINUOUS FOCUS that's reflected on the AdWords success story, and that's why eggheads lose money when they put their money where their mouths are...

They increasingly deal with a small core of early Google employees...

Realy? They DON'T talk to all 20.000 - 30.000 of them? Sounds like hell for these poor souls...(were you neglected as a child man?)

The people hit hardest by this will be Google's flacks — and the servile journalists who so eagerly celebrated Google's lava-lamp culture. What stories will they tell now? How Google is cutting corners on the organic foie-gras hamburgers in its cafes?

No Owen... Google is cutting corners on foi-gras hamburgers ONLY for moochers like yourself... That is, freeloaders with no actual work there...

Finally, the post ends with a line that is just bread & butter for this blog..

The billions gushing in from Google's search monopoly don't make for a good story....